- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:02:23 -0500
- To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Kurt Cagle scripsit: > Consider, for instance, the characteristics of a hypothetical lax XML parser Yeeks. What you are doing here, AFAICS, is trying to design a kludge. By comparison, HTML parsing is an *evolved* kludge: it got to be the way it is as a result of natural selection (more or less). The trouble with designing a kludge is, why this particular kludge and not one of any number of possible closely related kludges? For the normal application of kludges as one-offs, this doesn't matter, but redesigning XML parsing is anything but a one-off. > As the parser works through these cases, it assigns a weight that > indicates the likelihood that a given heuristic rule determines the > correct configuration. Based on what? To do this in a sound way, you'd have to have a lot of information about broken XML and what the creator *meant* to express by it. I don't know any source of that information. Otherwise you are not truly doing heuristics, but just guessing a priori about what kinds of error-generating processes are more important and what are less important. -- In my last lifetime, John Cowan I believed in reincarnation; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in this lifetime, cowan@ccil.org I don't. --Thiagi
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2010 06:02:54 UTC